I do not think anyone has ever said that your intake does not flow better than the stock intake and therefore can make more power if that is the point of the proposed demonstration. If the point is to show that a Raylar engine can not make 575hp with a stock intake that may be the case as well as you have stated in the past. But it would seem logical that this would not be a valid test to refute the Tyler Crocket reported hp obtained from a completely different engine and set up than yours.

Good intake test Ray. Next, maybe you should order a set of pistons that would allow you to test some different rocker ratios that will give you more lift. My guess is it will make some relatively cheap HP without changing your cam profile.
Ben

On the Raylar 525 maybe. On the Raylar 600 it is a pretty big cam. Until you really turn the 496 rpm up into an area that will create reliability issues, they make good power. You can keep making the heads flow bettter but if you only run the engine up to 5400, what are you really going to gain?

I am not sure of the HP impact of the lift at a lower RPM, but Tyler and others (including Ray) can make 600 lbs Tq with 500 ci at 5300 with a single carb. Maybe it is all about the EFI intake?
Jim V,
How do the flow #'s compare on reworked Dart 8.1 iron heads vs. reworked Dart Iron Eagles?

Dont know yet. According to CP they were "on the dyno"

What a dick!!!. Ray, after speaking with you a few years ago i sold my 496's and bought some 500's. But that was when you were the only game in town. You think your **** does not stink!! Looks like someone is upset there is some competition. If i was Dart i would not sell you ****!

Whose What Stinks?
 

03 Sonic:

I am not a **** as you would seem to believe and yes my **** stinks just like yours!

I am speaking here and sharing my expert knowledge on OSO to help 496 owners and they don't even have to buy my parts, kits and engines to receive this knowledge for many years here free of charge and obligation.
When I speak of Dart, I speak with respect for their products and accomplishments and they are a great company with a great history and proven parts and success!
What I am talking about here is the misinformation that tends to get spewed out here on the internet in forums like this about the 496 engine and all the so called easy upgrades and fixes that pop up.
I can tell you without hesitation and without fail that the 496 block that Dart is now offering will not accept and transfer all the Mercury accessories and such over without some serious modifications, changes to equipment and expense to make a direct transfer use of this block. How do I know that? Its because I just spent another two hours on the phone this AM with Richard Maskin the owner of Dart, going over all the exact conditions I am speaking to about the Merc 496 engine conversion usage of his block offering. You and others need to understand that Dart did not develop their 8.1L block and iron heads as a direct replacement for the Merc 496 engine (GM) block. They developed it for 1000's of orders they hope to receive for inexpensive replacement engine they will be building and supplying to replace 8.1L stationary industrial versions for this engine that are used in power generators, pumping units and such that do not need the exact external block bolt mountings and configurations that 496 Merc engine owners will need to use this block as a direct replacement for their upgrades.
We are working with Dart to get Raylar and the marine industry a block that will be close enough that will allow this conversion with a minimum of extra work, modification and expense for those that will need a new replacement block.

What I am trying to avoid here is 496 owners and users who get some not so accurate information on new parts and pieces available and coming available from manufacturers like Dart and others so they know exactly what will work easily and what may take some serious modification and what may ultimately not work well at all as an upgrade. If I can help save them the expense of a possible problem or mistake then I have done a service that I don't expect sales or payment for.

I am also sometimes tired of mistaken facts and performance results that are dropped on this forum without results being put to an independent unbiased accurate tests. Raylar equipment, engines and results have been certified for years by others in the industry and Raylar is ready willing and able to back any claim we make and eat serious humble pie if we don't provide what we say we do!

I say this with years of proven success and results, Raylar has forgotten more about the 496 8.1L engine platform than most others in the industry even know. If that sounds like i am being a **** about it then so be it! I can prove my point many times over in the past, the current time and in the future!

Ok, now I've cooled off a bit! Just tired of people making nasty comments about what they know not much about!!
When I talk and post I always try to just talk about what I really know and I always come from a place of helping not bashing!

Best Regards,
Ray @ Raylar

Admirable mission Ray. In that vein what Merc 496 parts specifically then did you and Richard determine would not bolt up to the Dart 8.1 heads?

Sonic, I think Ray is trying to help without throwing a company under the bus. The dart block is essentially a different generation block machined like the 496/8.1. This causes an immediate issue with the oil pan, and accessories. The one at the show didnt have some of the bosses to bolt stuff on to and an opening for a mechanical fuel pump... I dont know if you know the 496/8.1 well but it doesnt have a mechanical fuel pump. So, until someone has repaired these seemingly small issues, its easier to buy a street 496/8.1 out of a 2500 series off cragslist for $200-500 and fill it with forged components.

The heads are a different story. Everyone is reaching a threshold and getting big flow numbers. But, you cant deny that you can run higher compression with the aluminum heads. At the end of the day, after being fully built the cast iron heads are only slightly cheaper if at all.

What if he was "more" of a d_ck and decided not to share information? How many other suppliers are willing to share sometimes, very intimate knowledge and information? For free?

What he's saying is just about equal to you going to the store and buying a box of shoes for your feet - only to find out when you got home that you have to "left" shoes in the box.

In this case, it's a heck of a lot more money and frustration than trying to return a used shoe!!!!

Perhaps his style of communication doesn't always make the point softly but sometimes the would-be-buyers need to hear it anyway.

And regarding your thinking that Dart should not sell him anything.... Did you know that most really good products came from multiple vendors with friends and associates sharing information and when it finally gets released only ONE company gets the credit for it?

And if you saw the block in question up close, you might be surprised to know that it aint' going in a boat very easily unless you wanna throw out everything you have and start over..... Which would defeat the purpose of buying a product at a lesser cost no??

Like him or hate him I don't care. But it sure seems nice and open when these types of conversations start up.

Everyone wins (especially the boat owners & buyers) even if you don't like all of the players.